Twitter

Kevin McCarthy Wants Twitter to Kick Out a Congressional Candidate

...after months of complaining that social media companies censor too much.

|

JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS/Newscom

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) wants Twitter to ban a congressional candidate who called first lady Melania Trump a "hoebag."

In a tweet yesterday, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk pointed out that Trump has significantly fewer staffers than her predecessor, Michelle Obama. Mark Roberts, an independent running to represent Oregon's 2nd Congressional District, responded by suggesting Trump is a prostitute:

I'd call that tasteless but harmless and move on. McCarthy called it "disgraceful" and declared that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey should ban Roberts from the platform as soon as possible:

The punchline: McCarthy has spent the last few months accusing social media companies of censoring conservative viewpoints. Apparently, it's not the censorship part that offended him.

NEXT: Charges Against a North Carolina Police Chief Lead to the Suspension of His Entire Department

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s so weird that Reason writes about an effort to ban a congressional candidate from social media rather than Austen Peterson actually being banned from Twitter after soliciting donations in bitcoin and a left-wing activist group lumped this effort in with a Russia fever dream

    http://www.kctv5.com/story/38768739/t…..n-missouri

    1. Are you guys just too invested in Russia fever dreams to acknowledge how they are being used in a statist effort to silent dissent?

      1. Are you too invested in right-think that you forget that Twitter is a business and can do what it wants?

        1. Congrats. You just defended Kevin McCarthy

          1. Kevin McCarthy is a politician, as in the last people who have a right to tell people how to speak.

            1. Yup. So is Claire McCaskill. Banning someone for soliciting donations in bitcoin and then using a made-up conspiracy theory through your PAC to get your opponent banned from Twitter sounds an awful lot like what is being talked about here.

              1. Actually, the Austen Peterson example seems more relevant to libertarian grievances, since it involves bitcoin and a former LP candidate. But, conspiracy theories are cool now and if you don’t think so you might be a Russian bot

                1. Live by the unfettered market, get banned for 12 hours by the unfettered market.

                  Stop yer bitching. Libertopia is gonna have much bigger problems than this.

                  1. You understand he’s bitching about Reason’s coverage and story selection right?

                  2. Your existence is regrettable, so thats one.

                2. Anyways, I guess it’s silly to expect Reason to discuss how an ape shit crazy conspiracy theory is being used to silence opposition, even if it is a former LP member.

                  That would be like insisting that Alex Jones discuss how not all frogs have turned gay.

                  1. Caroline O. makes Alex Jones look rational and level headed.

                  2. You really want to get that point in there, that Russia interfering in American democracy is a hoax, don’t you? Legitimate reporting is saying it’s ongoing and focused on 2018.

                    Guess it comes down to whether you trust Trump on Wednesdays and Fridays or the national intelligence agencies all week.

                    1. OK, Joe McCarthy.

                      I will believe all that the intelligence community tells me and recite ape shit crazy conspiracy theories. Because I am a good woketarian.

                    2. Saying the Russians interfered with the election is like saying Tony interfered with John’s ability to do his job at the DHS.

                    3. Saying the Russians interfered with the election is like saying Tony interfered with John’s ability to do his job at the DHS.

                      Excellent analogy.

                      *tips hat*

                    4. All y’all interfere with my ability to do my job – and my wife wouldn’t like it one bit if she were ever to find out.

                  3. “That would be like insisting that Alex Jones discuss how not all frogs have turned gay.”

                    The rest were put in pots of boiling water.

                    Wake up, sheeple!

    2. It’s so weird

      No it isn’t.

  2. Someone named Kevin McCarthy has seemingly undergone a sudden change in his attitudes and behavior? Has he been sleeping near any pods lately?

    1. Rep. Kevin McCarthy gives a bad name to the name of other Kevin McCarthys – witness:

      (1) One of my best friends and a fellow native Rhode Islander and

      (2) The great character actor

      1. Yep. Lets all just hope he does NOT become the next Speaker. McCarthy is just awful. Jim Jordan will be far better.

  3. Christ, what an asshole.

    1. See my post at 4:04

  4. Oh good, now we are going to get 100 comments from Reason Republicans about how it’s only fair to kick this candidate off Twitter because “hold the left to their own standards”. While in a completely different discussion they will complain about how the left doesn’t value free speech anymore.

    To those who say “hold them to their own standards”: Where is the line that you draw between acceptable and unacceptable behavior when it comes to supposedly ‘holding them to their standards’? Is there any? And by ‘holding them to their own standards’, aren’t you really just letting THEM dictate what YOUR course of action will be?

    1. Plenty of other people have been kicked out for less. Twitter either needs to undo that or kick this guy off. You really seem to have a hard time grasping the simple concept of consistency, don’t you?

      1. Rules should only be used when I like them. Then everyone has to follow them.

        1. What would you call a person who hates rules so much that he would defend those accused of breaking the rules he made?

      2. Who has been kicked off twitter for less than insinuating someone is a prostitute?

      3. Twitter either needs to undo that or kick this guy off.

        Authoritarian right-wingers demanding that a private business comply with standards they prefer — and doing so in the service of partisan polemics and in conflict with their ostensible principles — are among my favorite faux libertarians and all-around asswipes.

        1. They can do whatever they want, but they should do something you progtarded shitbags never do, and demonstrate consistency.

    2. Hope you enjoy self-satisfaction of living up to your high standards as they burn you for a witch.

    3. Consistency is for the little people…

    4. Thankfully we have your selective moral outrage to guide the way.

    5. There’s no ‘line’.

      As I said below if you’ve set out a Terms of Service agreement that people must sign to use your service, that ToS should be enforced equally.

      If you ban Y for saying X, they you have to ban Z for saying X.

      Leftists, thinking that BEING leftists gets them a pass–because it usually does–are by far the biggest offenders. They run homophobic, racist, xenophobic, and bigoted campaigns, materials and ‘jokes’ all the time and no one does a thing–because the ‘algorithm’ doesn’t kick in on THEIR comments for some reason….but it ‘automatically’ does so for people on the right.

      If they were forced to play by the rules they expect their opponents to follow they’d be shut out of social media for the most part. This is starting to happen. That’s why you, and Robby, and Nick and all of your ilk are screaming about it so much–trying to shame people in the right into giving up by applying labels to them that they use against the left.

      It’s not working?

      Know why?

      Because the president is a troll.

      1. Because the president is a troll.

        It amazes me that people still don’t get this.

        1. He would be like unto a god on 4chan.

      2. It’s not working?

        Know why?

        Yes, the POTUS is a troll, but his followers are also tired of taking shit.

        If Democrats don’t want to be held to their own standards, they have two options:

        1. Stop being hypocritical pricks

        2. Lower their standards

        1. Yes, the POTUS is a troll, but his followers are also tired of taking shit.

          They should have chosen an adequate education, developed a marketable skill, adapted to modernity, ditched the superstition, moved out of the desolate backwaters, and refrained from blaming others for their self-inflicted deficiencies.

          1. Why? You clearly haven’t.

      3. Is there a twitter rule against joking that someone acts like a whore?

        1. Do whores claim fake degrees and pad their skimpy resumes?

          Do whores latch onto flabby, old, silver-spooned rich guys?

          Do whores have sketchy immigration histories?

          Do whores have Frankenfaces incapable of exhibiting emotion?

          Do whores engage in chain migration for their communist parents?

          Do whores sleep apart from their husbands and throw public shade at their husbands?

          Do whores take their clothes off for money?

          I guess one could argue that this one could go either way.

          1. Are you showcasing your resume?

    6. The line is pretty clear, you’re just being obtuse because you don’t have a legitimate argument.

      1. Okay, so what’s the line, if it’s so clear?

          1. Are you sure of that?

    7. I know public discourse can be frustrating. And yet, until it occurs to people that the problem isn’t everyone else in the world, there’s nothing effective to be done except pull up a chair and make popcorn.

      If people have standards that we will only abide by if we think the other person has earned those exceptional standards, then in reality we have a frequently badly-behaved person with an effective justification for not acting better. The standards are just stories with little bearing on reality.

      The tricky part isn’t grasping this. It’s applying it personally.

      You can’t tell folks, Jeff. It doesn’t appear the thing can be done. Everyone is a hero in their own heads, and countering that narrative just paints one as a tribal outsider.

      Just work on you, and enjoy the show. People get it, or don’t; we’re pretty irrelevant in that regard.

      1. Just work on you, and enjoy the show. People get it, or don’t; we’re pretty irrelevant in that regard.

        Wise words.

      2. ^ This.

        Most people tend to apply the line “Be the change you wish to see in the world” only to other people.

  5. She didn’t marry Trump for his looks.

    1. Those cute tiny hands?

      1. What woman does marry for looks? Women are not men. Tony, because he is queer, doesn’t understand that.

        1. True. Women will sleep around for looks, but don’t marry for looks. Men, on the other hand, will put a ring on anything that catches their eye.

          1. http://content.time.com/time/a…..91,00.html

            Take a look at Sofia Loren’s husband of over 50 years for conclusive proof of your claim.

          2. Men, on the other hand, will put a ring on anything that catches their eye.

            But why? Because it’s on their bucket list to eventually give away half of their money to someone they discover too late is psychotic?

            1. Men think with their dicks Tony. Gay men are no different. You know that.

              1. Yeah and so we’re always on the same page, more or less. Being straight sounds exhausting.

                1. Majority of gay men I know are higher maintenance than most women. Perhaps it is just the circle of gay friends I know, could be a bit different overall.

                  1. I once dated a woman for three years whose best friends were three gay couples.

                    She was an interior designer and the gay guys included an architect, an accountant, a hairdresser who owned his salon, an interior designer, a graphic artist, and one was a clerk at the Suffolk County Superior court.

                    All of the gay men thought I was supreme high maintenance for two reasons:

                    (1) all the sex I wanted with my girlfriend and

                    (2) my insatiable appetite for debate

  6. “What’s the difference between a rooster and a hoebag?”

    “One says ‘ Cock-a-doodle-doo’ and the other says ‘Any cock’ll do’.”

    1. And SIV says “Any rooster’ll do.”

  7. Unless Twitter actually does kick this guy off, why does this matter? Is this guy not entitled to an opinion?

    1. Somehow it’s hypocritical to point out that turnabout is fair play, but not to point out that he is pointing out that turnabout is fair play.

    2. According to Title IX, that guy is a rapist.

  8. If you’re gonna censor the right for saying sexist things, you gotta censor the left for the same thing.

    Asking for equal enforcement of the ToS is not ‘being a snowflake’.

    1. When the left gets someone kicked off Twitter, that is just a private matter and no one has any right to complain. When the right tries to do the same thing, that is just them being a snowflake and a hypocrite.

      Reason has one solution when it comes to any culture war issue’ let the progressive win. But people who claim that reason is staffed by a bunch of Progs pretending to be libertarians for a paycheck are just conspiracy mongers.

      1. You can choose not to join the ranks of the hypocrites, you know.

        1. I thought you guys were recruiting.

      2. What version of Reason do you read where they never condemn left-wing censorship?

        1. This one. Where did they ever have a problem with the Rosanne thing? It was all about how Twitter is a private company. Show me one culture war issue where their position isn’t “let the Progressives win”.

          1. When did Roseanne get banned from Twitter? Also, Robby criticized the show getting cancelled. And in general, campus speech, cake wars, etc.

        2. Reason consistently attacks the victims for daring to ask for equal treatment.

          That is what is wrong here. Reason pretends like the right wouldn’t be happy if everyone just could say what they want without getting banned or shadow-banned. They are creating a false dichotomy that is intellectually dishonest and fucking sad.

          1. That is a great way to put it. They pretend that the right is just doing this in a vacuum and for no apparent reason other than that they are big meanies. And yes, it is sad and pathetic. The only thing sadder is their fanboys who justify it.

          2. Reason pretends like the right wouldn’t be happy if everyone just could say what they want without getting banned or shadow-banned.

            They wouldn’t be.

            I don’t believe for one moment that the Right believes in free speech for its own sake as the Left does.

            If the tables were turned, I have no doubt that a right-wing Twitter would be banning users for “unpatriotic” speech.

            1. er, that should be:
              I don’t believe for one moment that the Right believes in free speech for its own sake any more than the Left does.
              Neither tribe does.

              1. Ah, a simple mistake, sorry for calling you a troll.

                To your point, that is conjecture. Until the right does do the same thing that the left is, you can’t hold it against them.

                Every partisan left wing news organization banned comments on their news articles. Right wing partisans tend not to. I’m not sure that your theory would even be true.

                1. Good heavens. Mostly, news outlets have outsourced their commenting features to third parties like Disqus, or done away with them as an unnecessary hassle and expense. It has very little to do with ideology. Besides there are numerous counter-examples. For instance, Slate has open commenting, while National Review has a heavily moderated commenting system open only to subscribers.

                  And one need look no further than the whole NFL anthem kneeling protests to see how conservatives react to speech that they don’t like.

                  1. Did conservatives demand speech stop?

                    As Jason Whitlock pointed out, you know, there are 6 days and 21 OTHER hours you can protest in. Those 3 hours are not the ONLY times you can protest and getting media attention isn’t exactly difficult.

                    As a former fan, I took my choice and simply decided to ignore the NFL.

                    There is no silencing of speech with a request to not do it when they are on the clock. If the assorted idiots who play football ran their own businesses, they wouldn’t tolerate THEIR employees doing what they are doing (namely, hurting the business by being asses).

                    1. Did conservatives demand speech stop?

                      Umm, yes.

                      For starters:

                      http://www.change.org/p/roger-…..m-protests

                      And don’t forget what the Troll-In-Chief tweeted about it.

                    2. So a petition is the same as legislation banning speech. Interesting that this concern comes from the guy defending the red hen behavior. But that’s different.

                      Oh, and trump is not allowed to use speech to criticize speech, because reasons. Of course

                2. Until the right does do the same thing that the left is, you can’t hold it against them.

                  Pendulums tend to swing depending on who has the most social power at a given moment.

                  When I started teaching 20+ years ago, I had to sign an oath declaring under penalty of perjury that I was not a Communist and had never been involved with Communists.

                  I have my doubts it was left-wingers who got that law put on the books.

                  In the 80s and 90s Republicans were seriously arguing that advocacy of drug legalization should be outlawed on the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” principle.

                  That “the Right” is at the moment less of an active threat to free expression is merely a coincidence of timing.

                  1. Thank you. Yes, it wasn’t all that long ago that conservatives were the ones demanding that certain books be banned because they ‘corrupted the youth of the nation’ or somesuch.

                    Neither tribe is committed to free speech for its own sake.

                    1. That is true enough.

                  2. So, sins of the father is your argument?

                    Nice talk.

                    1. So, sins of the father is your argument?

                      When the fathers still walk among us, yes.

                  3. And yet somehow open marxists have been teaching at universities for decades. Huh.

                    1. And yet somehow open marxists have been teaching at universities for decades. Huh.

                      I’m not saying we weren’t all lying. But are we pretending that that wasn’t the law? Are we pretending the evil left wingers put that law in place?

                      Remember “Free Speech Zones?”

                      Fucking liberals.

                    2. And yet somehow leftists not only cemented their power in academia but have used it to expunge any right wing views. Do we just chalk that up to the left being more efficient versus more dedicated?

                    3. And yet somehow leftists not only cemented their power in academia but have used it to expunge any right wing views. Do we just chalk that up to the left being more efficient versus more dedicated?

                      Change the subject much?

                    4. Not really, no.

                      We now return you to your selective outrage and whataboutism.

                    5. Me: The political right has a history of suppressing speech it doesn’t like, too.

                      NAS: No it doesn’t.

                      Me: Yes – look at rules against expressing Communist ideas, proposals to outlaw drug-legalization advocacy, “Free Speech Zones”

                      NAS: Yeah, but most humanities and social science professors are Marxists.

                      Me: That doesn’t have anything to do with what I just said.

                      NAS: You’re doing whataboutism!

                      Proof that the Right is pro-free-speech and the Left is anti-free-speech.

                    6. I’m not saying we weren’t all lying. But are we pretending that that wasn’t the law? Are we pretending the evil left wingers put that law in place?

                      Holy shit, Pinocchio, you doubled down! Now there was an actual LAW in the late 90s that people had to swear they weren’t commies to teach?

                      Man, you are so full of shit no wonder it’s dribbling down your chin.

                  4. When I started teaching 20+ years ago, I had to sign an oath declaring under penalty of perjury that I was not a Communist and had never been involved with Communists.

                    You had to sign a loyalty oath in the late 90s?

                    Damn, Pinocchio, that’s harsh.

                3. No, jeff – as usual – uses the progressive form of argument: stating a hypothetical as fact to counter an actual fact, so one can claim “both sides are equally bad”

                  Treating fantasy as reality is the pathology of Progressives, and fully embraced by cj

            2. I don’t believe for one moment that the Right believes in free speech for its own sake as the Left does.

              So, is this guy a troll, or just magnificently ignorant?

      3. Reason has one solution when it comes to any culture war issue’ let the progressive win.

        How dumb do you need to be to expect libertarians to find social conservatism tolerable?

    2. Asking for equal enforcement of the ToS is not ‘being a snowflake’.

      Only if you think the ToS is morally correct in the first place.

      If you don’t think the ToS is proper, why would you want it imposed on anyone?

      Oh wait I know the answer – to “own the libs”.

      1. Only if you think the ToS is morally correct in the first place.

        What is immoral about it? Just because you wouldn’t have the same doesn’t make it immoral. It only becomes immoral when it is selectively enforced or ignored. But there is nothing immoral about saying “we are only going to allow things within certain limits on our platform.”

        If you don’t think the ToS is proper, why would you want it imposed on anyone?

        No one here thinks it is “improper”. They think it is improper to have a TOS that says one thing but then is enforced in an entirely one sided and unfair way.

        1. So you believe *in principle* that people ought to be banned from social media platforms due to vague concepts like “hate speech”, then?

          I’m not asking whether Twitter has the authority to ban people for reasons like this – they do. I”m asking whether you think they ought to ban people for reasons like this.

          1. No. I think social media platforms should make whatever rules they want but should stick to those rules once they have them. If Twitter wants to be an entirely leftwing platform, that is their right. But their TOS should reflect that.

            You don’t really understand how this works do you?

            1. You are dodging the question.

              If you were advising Twitter, what would you advise them to do when it came to whether or not to ban users for things like “hate speech”?

              We all agree they have the authority to do whatever they like. We are discussing what they *ought* to do.

              1. I am not dodging the question at all. I am telling you that the question is irrelevant to the larger point. If I ran Twitter, I would not ban hate speech. I would let all speech on it. But I don’t run Twitter and never will. So, my opinion about that doesn’t matter. Twitter can be run however the people who own it want to run it. It only becomes an issue of any concern if they lie and claim to run it one way but in fact run it another. Then it becomes a fraud and something that everyone has a right to condemn.

                1. If I ran Twitter, I would not ban hate speech. I would let all speech on it.

                  So don’t stick up for a guy who wants to throw people off Twitter because of speech he doesn’t like.

                  1. And don’t stick up for a platform that doesn’t apply its own rules. Can you seriously not see the problems with selective enforcement?

              2. If I was advising Twitter I’d tell them to change their TOS so they can ban whoever they want for whatever reason they feel like. Then, at least, everyone would know where they stand.

                1. Hit submit too quick.

                  AFAIK this is already the reality of the TOS. But they ought not ban people from one particular side of the aisle for things they let people from the other side of the aisle get away with. It’s just bad PR. So maybe don’t have a “Hate Speech” rider in there?

            2. You don’t really understand how this works do you?

              . . . says the guy dumb enough to fall for “fair and balanced . . . “

      2. What?

        Imposed?

        You sign the fucking ToS when you choose–voluntarily–to sign up for a social media service.

        The ToS is the owner saying these are the rules for playing in my house, you wanna play, you play by these rules.

        And that is entirely fine and, more importantly to you apparently–moral.

        What is immoral is that those rules, which everyone signs, are unevenly applied. Asking that they BE evenly applied–something that is usually part of the ToS–is not asking for special treatment. It is asking for the treatment agreed to in the ToS.

        Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

        1. If you think the terms of the ToS are unjust and immoral, why would you want to see them imposed at all, let alone evenly?

          What you seem to be saying is, “I don’t agree with the terms of the ToS, but I want them imposed on my adversaries nonetheless”. Which kinda calls into question whether you actually disagree with the terms of the ToS or not.

          1. I think the terms are bullshit, which is why I don’t have twitter. But it seems to me that it’s patently obvious who thinks the terms are wrong (by their own actions and posts), but thinks they should be imposed on their adversaries (by forming mobs to get them banned).

          2. So your position on rules is literally they should only be applied if you like the outcome. Wow.

          3. What the fuck are you talking about?

            If you’re on twiiter of facebook or youtube or instagram or any other social media site you’ve already–of your own free will– AGREED to the ToS. You can’t be there otherwise.

            YOU thought it was worth it. YOU didn’t disagree with them.

            Or, in this case, to be absolutely precise here, McCarthy did.

            And it is not immoral or untoward or improper in the least to expect that the ToS will be enforced as the ToS states it will be enforced.

            Are you not getting this at all? It’s not about the ToS being proper, improper or immoral. It’s about the ToS being improperly APPLIED.

            If the ToS says you get booted for saying X, and Y says X and gets booted, that’s fine–because Y freely agreed to that.

            But if Z comes along and says X too and DOESN’T get booted–well that’s fucked up.

            See?

      3. If you don’t think the ToS is proper, why would you want it imposed on anyone?

        1. Twitter is enforcing the rules. Most of us would rather they not at all — but enforcing them on only one group is absolutely ridiculous.

          Either these fucking retarded rules apply to everybody or nobody.

  9. It’s not like he said something about woodchippers. Sheesh.

  10. I really liked the “comments like these have no business on any platform”. Really? So he thinks they should be banned, prohibited, outlawed even? What about a comment that people like you should be fed feet-first into a wood-chipper? Should that be right out as well? But seriously, Kevin, no matter how slavishly you white-knight Melania, she ain’t gonna suck your dick so just get over it and move on.

    1. I really liked the “comments like these have no business on any platform”.

      Everyone did. It’s the exact phrase that’s used to try to get people on the right banned for saying heinous, unforgivable things like ‘MAGA’, and ‘Trump won’, and ‘Hillary is a hoebag’.

      But you probably missed that.

  11. Time for ‘common sense media control’.
    A few hours of mandatory training, a few fees for background checks and fingerprints, a revocable license, and all will be well. A calm, civilized discourse in the land of twits.
    Works for the second amendment, should work for the first.
    As a bonus, the same permit would allow you to go to church.

    1. This comment should be bronzed, hung over the mantle, and handed down as a cherished heirloom for future generations to enjoy.

      Delightful.

  12. Some commenter on Volkh made a great point about these social media platforms yesterday. All of them were given immunity from liability for their content by the DMCA. I am okay with that. But, if they are going to claim immunity for any of their user-posted content, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect them to be viewpoint neutral when they do so. I think telling them that they can do whatever they want, but in doing so are now liable for whatever content goes up or they can be immune from that liability in return for not discriminating against certain viewpoint is a just way to look at it.

    1. I thought that the immunity was granted as long as they did not ‘publish’.
      Deciding who and what gets through the screens moves them over to publishing, and they ‘should’ be open to suit.
      There is clear disproportionate impact in all of the social media majors. Either they let all ‘third party’ posts through, or no immunity.

      1. That is a good point. They actually should be forfeiting their immunity the moment they start censoring posts.

        1. Yes.

  13. So, apparently, the #MeToo moment is over.

  14. Once again, because no one bothered to address the substantive point:

    Playing the game of “making them live up to their own rules” is tantamount to giving them moral agency over your actions.

    You are letting them define what is right and wrong for you. You realize this, right?

    Of course, if you don’t see a problem with giving them moral agency over your actions, perhaps it is because you and they share the same sense of moral conduct – that people SHOULD be punished for ‘wrongthink’ as a general principle, and the only real difference is what constitutes the ‘wrongthink’.

    I do not believe for one moment those who claim that they are only making the left live up to their own rules “until they knock it off”. I think instead that they want to make the left live up to “their own rules” because “the left’s rules” are actually the same as their own.

    1. My calling out your hypocrisy is not letting you define right and wrong for me. It is me expecting you to live the rules you seek to enforce on other people. When someone criticizes a priest for breaking their vow of celibacy, they are not committing to being celibate themselves. And they don’t have to be celibate or even believe in priests being so to point out the hypocrisy.

      You don’t seem to understand that this is about dishonesty not about the substance of who should and should not be allowed on Twitter. The point here is that the left is lying when it claims to care about free speech or speech that is offensive to women. They just say they care about such things insofar as doing so can be used as a weapon against their enemies. Pointing that out deprives the left of any moral authority over these matters. That is why the Right must do so and why the left hates it so much when they do.

      1. The point here is that the left is lying when it claims to care about free speech or speech that is offensive to women. They just say they care about such things insofar as doing so can be used as a weapon against their enemies.

        Of course they are! But the real question is, do you value free speech? If so, then you should be supportive of free speech, and not seek to deprive people of speech just in order to “own the libs”.

        Because from where I sit, I see a bunch of sanctimonious Team Blue tribalists pretending to be supportive of free speech but really not, and I also see a bunch of hypocritcial Team Red tribalists claiming to be the *real* defenders of free speech, even while they try to limit the speech of the Team Blue tribalists “so as to teach them a lesson”.

        1. Of course they are! But the real question is, do you value free speech? If so, then you should be supportive of free speech, and not seek to deprive people of speech just in order to “own the libs”.

          This isn’t about free speech. Getting kicked off of Twitter doesn’t deprive you of free speech. This is about Twitter and the left’s hypocrisy. As usual, you either don’t understand the issue or are just here trolling to try and change the subject. Either way, it is long past the point of being tiresome.

          1. No I understand the issue perfectly.

            You claim to have one set of higher standards that you think ought to be applied, but instead of advocating for that set of standards to be applied, you would much rather “own the libs” and apply the lower standards that they hold to themselves.

            One may be forgiven, then, for disbelieving that you sincerely adhere to these higher standards of free speech, and in reality, you actually agree with the libs in wanting to censor views that you don’t like.

            1. You claim to have one set of higher standards that you think ought to be applied, but instead of advocating for that set of standards to be applied, you would much rather “own the libs” and apply the lower standards that they hold to themselves.

              No. They are not my standards. They are the standards that Twitter itself in its TOS claims to uphold. Again, you don’t understand the argument and you continue to make the same point not realizing how nonsensical it is.

              1. You claimed above that you thought Twitter shouldn’t ban people for “hate speech”.

                Yet, instead of saying that Twitter shouldn’t ban this Oregon rep for his supposed speech, you want to see him kicked off Twitter nonetheless. Because you evidently want to see unjust rules imposed on your adversaries.

                1. Why would an unjust rule EVER stop if only a few people are impacted by it?

                  You best end unjust rules by enforcing them evenly and uniformly.

                  Why do people who DEMAND these rules then get to eschew them and do whatever shit they want?

                  1. You best end unjust rules by enforcing them evenly and uniformly.

                    So the way to stop injustice is to increase the injustice. Got it!

                    1. The way to create a just society is to arbitrarily change the rules of the game whenever you don’t like the outcome. What could go wrong?

                  2. “Why would an unjust rule EVER stop if only a few people are impacted by it?”
                    That’d be the right of people to seek redress for their grievances. It’s going lots of people have gotten things changed even though it only arrested a minority of people.

            2. John explained it perfectly well, and you’re still being obtuse.

              Think of it more like the rules of a sport. They need not follow society’s rules. You can like football and still be a libertarian, even though there is plenty of aggression.

              When you break the rules or bend the rules, you are a cheater, and people hate cheaters (it is ingrained in human nature for a good reason).

              1. When you break the rules of a sport, you get a penalty. You don’t give the other team permission to break the rules. “Turnabout is fair play” is not a moral or ethical principle, even if it is a fun soundbite

                1. This isn’t breaking any rules. Again you confuse your feelings for rules. And yet you approve of Obergefell. So what were you saying about not needing to apply uniform standards?

            3. And given your concern about owning the libs one could be forgiven for thinking that you care at all about free speech as well.

  15. If Twitter built the perfect echo chamber, they could maybe turn a profit. Think about that, @jack.

  16. Seems a bit inconsistent with who Twitter bans. Oppose trans troops? Ban. Call Trump a whore? Fine

  17. If Twitter follows its own terms of service, should Mark Roberts be banned?

  18. “turnabout is fair play”?

    Cool. That means you’re down with legislatively banning straight folk from teaching, marrying, adopting, having security clearances, serving in the military, etc and so-on.

    What? You’re not down with that? Then it seems “fair play” has to actually be *fair*, and not just what a bad actor did to you first.

    It makes for a cute sound bite, but it’s not moral, ethical or “fair”.

    1. “Hypocrisy” makes for an even more pithy one. Oddly enough you don’t seem very concerned with Twitter bans on people you don’t like. So much for that equal treatment thing, let alone *fair*.

      1. Seeing as I’m unconcerned about Twitter bans at *all*, you are correct, but for the wrong reasons. There’s a reason I’m not talking about the underlying issue, only how folk are reacting to it.

        You also missed my point. There’s a lot of folk in this comment section pulling out the “turnabout is fair play” card, but they seem to be ignorant of the fact that in the vast majority of cases, it *isn’t*. People are fundamentally confusing the difference between vengeance and Justice.

        1. It’s not “turnabout is fair play”. The idea that it is is just you–and you’ve held on to it no matter what people have explained to you.

          It’s living up to the terms of the agreement you created and had everyone sign to get access.

          If all must sign, the terms must apply equally to all as stated in the agreement.

          Nobody is talking about getting to break any laws because there aren’t any involved.

          And the thing you’re fixated on and calling ‘turnabout’ is people saying ‘Wait, you said that the ToS doesn’t allow for saying X, and we get that–but those people over there are saying X whenever they want–and they signed the same ToS as we did. Either it’s okay to say X and ‘X’ isn’t what the ToS was referring to–or they need to stop saying X, too.

          It’s expecting a contract to be enforced upon all signatories equally.

          This double standard that the left employs so often is actually a deliberate undermining of the rule of law. They seek a return to the rule of men, when position was wealth.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.